The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-02-24

Ct EtDOEItu lhNOluDig W S0N'4-t
I certain charitable companies from paying
tax as insurance companies.
Senator Glasscock, for the committee
on education, reported back substitute
for the bill to establish an industrial
school for colored youths; unfavorably
10 loan the school fund to railroads;
unfavorably authorizing county commits
| siOuers to erect school houses.
Senator Upshaw, for the committee on
pubIic roads, reported favorably senate
| bill No. 262 relative to public roads.
BILLS INTRODUCED.
By Senator Bell-To require the sheriffs
TO report all criminals to the adjutant-
general upon the adjournment of their re-
spective district courts.
By Senator Jarvis-To allow railroads
to make running arrangements with con
Meeting lines outside of the state so as to
buy or lease the same.
Senator Glasscock called up his resOlu-
ton to hold two sessions day, and 1t was
adopted.
Senator Bell called up his resolution re-
during the evening session to consider
only house bills or bills on second and
third reading, and it was adopted
Senator Houston called up the joint
resolution amending the constitution rel
alive to taxation in the unOrganized
counties, and it went over until to-day.
The discussion of the railroad commits
sion bill was resumed, the pending ques-
ton being Senator Gregg's amendment,
combining the commissioners "to the max
imum rates now fixed, or which may here
after be fixed by law
Senator Simkins ably argued IN favor
| of the bill, and discussed the benefits and
necessity of having flexible rule to reg
ulate rates of freight. A rate for winter
would not do for summer, and summer
rates might be unjust for winter traffic.
He read from an editorial in the Philadel-
phia Record, showing that since the pres
| ident signed the interstate commerce bill,
| that railroad securities have advanced in
value, and an impetus been given to the
railroad business of the country.
! Hence, he contended that the inter
state law had accomplished this;
that a state commission would also result
beneticially to the roads ard the people.
He showed how the commission i'll Georgia
had prevented unj Just determinations in
the long and short haul, and the benefit
which had resulted to the people of that
state. He insisted that the commission
could not and would not injure the rail
roads, and that such commission i'll
Texas will not be unconstitutional.
Senator Abercrombie, in comprehen-
sive and eloquent argument opposed the
bill He said he represented one of the
most important railroad centers in the
al oil r ha
affected by the law, and he was bound to
oppose it. The bill, he considered, a
most Important one, as it seeks to con
troll all the railroads of the state. He
argued that, while the railroads have
drawn their very existence from the state,
received vast donations of lands and have
been the benefciaries of the state, that,
in many instances, they have been OPP
pressive in their operations and the peo-
pie had demanded that they be regulated
and controlled, and it was some
thing the legislature could and
should do. He urged that, if
the railroads we're in open defiance of the
law, they should be made 10 respect and
obey it. Admitting the evils complained
of he said Nov it is proposed by the
commission system to remedy them. This
is the question before us. Now it is con-
tended that this bill and the commission
it proposes is unconstitutional, and it is
the most serious question that We have to
contend with This question met us at the
very threshold of the discussion, and | re-
greet that have very grave doubts aboutits
constitutionality." He argued that the
Texas and Georgia constitutions were
quite different, and read from both, show
ing that, while the constitution of
Texas made it imperative upon the
legislature "to pass laws to correct abuses
and prevent unjust determinations and
extortion in the rates of freight and pas
senger traffic on the different railroads in
the state, and shall from time to time
pass laws establishing reasonable maxi
mum rates of charges for the transpOrta-
ton of passengers and freight the
Georgia constitution contained no such
provision, and, therefore, if the Georgia
constitution did not provide expressly for
a commission, as some commended it
did, it dare not exhibit one
by providing that the railroads shall be
regulated by the legislature, which from
time TO time shall pass laws establishing
reasonable maximum rates of freight. He
insisted that this provision of the Texas
constitution prohibited the creation of a
as it EXPIRE sly provided that
the railroads should be regulated and
their maximum rates be fixed by the legis
lature and not by commission. lie ar
gued that the constitution, having
placed the power in the legisla- |
ture, that the legislature could
not delegate it to three
men. He said it was simply an expert !
ment in Texas, and, as it had been shown
that in some twenty odd states they were
complete failures, he thought it would be |
well to postpone the matter, at least until |
the people could see how the interstate
commerce law was going to work. He
was willing to amend the constitution, so |
that commission could be legallycreated, |
and signitied his intention of introducing |
Il resolution for that purpose.
Senator Mcdonald followed in ar elo- |
quent, logical and comprehensive argu. |
ment. He coucurred in what Senator !
Abercrombie had said, and was sorry he, |
too, was not on the popular side of the |
question. The popular side was to oppose |
railroads; at least. that was the side on
which it was generally understood the poll |
ticiars and demagogues were always |
found. He argued that there was a popu-
lar demand that the railroads be regulated, |
but not necessarily by commission. |
There was popular demand for regula-
ton, so as to prevent unjust discrimiua-
ton, pooling and consolidation of COM
mating lines and all of this could ha dora